Previous | Next | Senate page | Menu
New polls: AZ GA MI MT NC NV PA WI
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: AZ
Least Surprising News of 2024: Russians Just Keep Fanning the Flames
We begin today with a bit of news that you surely already knew, even if you've been living in a cave for the last 3 years. The Russians are once again mucking around in a presidential election. They've been doing it for years, but have really increased the intensity of their activity over the last few cycles. Is that because Donald Trump has been on the ballot? Is it because the media and social media ecosystem makes it so easy to spread propaganda and misinformation? We would guess the answer to both questions is "yes."
On Wednesday, Russian interference was back in the headlines because the Biden administration announced some pretty strong moves meant to combat the problem. Specifically, the Department of Justice indicted two Russian nationals, imposed sanctions on 10 individuals and entities, and seized 32 internet domains. So much for Electoral-Vote.ru.
At the heart of the indictment is a scheme in which the two RT employees funneled $10 million toward the founding of Tenet Media in Tennessee. Tenet Media was founded by right-wing bomb thrower Lauren Chen and her husband Liam Donovan. We would be remiss if we did not note that, in addition to being Russian assets, Chen and Donovan are also... Canadians. At Tenet, they employed many pro-Trump provocateurs, including Tim Pool, Benny Johnson, and Dave Rubin. Pool, Johnson and Rubin claim they didn't know where the money was coming from, and that may be true. Though if so, that makes them a textbook example of "useful idiots," to use the Russian term. As you might guess, Tenet's "coverage" penetrated deeply into the right-wing mediasphere, and was/is particularly palpable in the programming on Fox.
How did the right-wing media respond to all of this? Well, to its credit, Blaze Media fired Chen from her position there. Fox, for its part, devoted much of its nighttime programming bloc to making the somewhat contrary arguments that: (1) this is much ado about nothing, and (2) this is a Biden-administration scheme to make Fox and other right-wing outlets look bad. Caught with your hand in the cookie jar, perhaps?
Donald Trump also blew his stack on his boutique social media platform:
Comrade Kamala Harris and her Department of Justice are trying to interfere in and suppress the Election in favor of the Democrats by resurrecting the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax, and trying to say that Russia is trying to help me, which is absolutely FALSE. In fact, President Putin would much rather see Comrade Kamala Harris in Office, as he strongly said just this morning. Why aren't they looking into Iran, China, & other Countries and, more importantly, why aren't they looking at Marc Elias, Mark Pomerantz, the relationship between Lisa Monaco to Andrew Weissmann, CREW, and all of the other Enemies of the People that had such an effect on the 2020 Election, and are trying to Rig and Steal the 2024 Presidential Election. So ironic watching Lisa Monaco, a figurehead for Weissmann and the group of Radical Left Lunatics who had so much to do with the original Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax, and now she is at it again, leading A.G. Merrick Garland down an empty and Country destroying path...
Vladimir Putin also decided to get in on the performance art, and announced his endorsement of Kamala Harris. For anyone who believes that is genuine, can we interest you in buying some of our new E-V.com cryptocurrency? Note that we don't accept rubles or riyals in payment, however.
Obviously, the federal government is doing what it can to combat this, but the Russkies are sneaky. In the end, Putin's thumb on the scale for Trump is now pretty much baked into the process. (Z)
Presidential Debate: The Stars Align
Both campaigns believe that a debate presents an opportunity for them. And so, it was always likely that the various points of disagreement would be resolved, and that the debate scheduled for Tuesday of next week would move forward. Yesterday, the Harris-Walz campaign dropped its demand that the candidates' microphones be live throughout the debate. So, it looks like we're full steam ahead.
Quite a few readers have already written in to ask if we'll do a bingo-style game again. Since the demand is there, sure we will. However, please help us out by suggesting possible bingo-square items (e.g., "Trump says the word 'unfair,'" someone mentions Barack Obama, etc.) at comments@electoral-vote.com, ideally with subject line "Bingo." (Z)
Economic Proposals: Trump Needs to Cool His Jets
Donald Trump has been going hog-wild releasing economic policy proposals this week, including a big pile of them in conjunction with a speech at the Economic Club of New York. Given that the man once ran on a platform of "please refer to our platform from 4 years ago," his sudden interest in being wonky is... uncharacteristic. One has to presume he's setting up something for the debate.
In any case, both the Trump and the Harris campaigns have put forward tax proposals that are fleshed-out enough for The New York Times to do a comparison, with some help from professional economists. The findings are very interesting.
If you look at what might be called the top-line numbers, the two candidates' ideas aren't that different. Every politician talks about helping the middle class, and both Trump and Harris have plans that would ostensibly do that. More specifically, a standard middle-class family would realize a return of $1,700 more each year under Trump's plan, as compared to $2,200 more each year under Harris' plan. Obviously, $500 isn't a huge amount of money (especially if you think of it as a bit less than $10 a week), but it's not zero, either. So, advantage Harris, if only slightly.
Once you get into the weedier details, however, the picture changes a fair bit. To start, the Harris plan would hit the top 0.1% of earners ($14 million/year or more) with an additional $167,000 in tax bills. On the other hand, the Trump plan would give those same folks an additional $377,000 back. That's a difference of over $500,000 a year for the top-top-top earners.
Meanwhile, to balance (imbalance?) the books, Trump—despite his membership in a party that is constantly carping about the national debt—would add $5.8 trillion to the debt over 10 years. Harris, by contrast, would add $1.2 trillion. Needless to say, $1.2 trillion is a lot of money. However, given the rate at which the debt has grown in recent years, it would actually represent a change in the right direction. The last president to add so little to the debt was George H.W. Bush, and he did it in 4 years (not 10), and in 1990s dollars. Trump's plan, by contrast, would only improve on two presidents' outlays—the $7 trillion added to the debt under Barack Obama's budgets, and the $6.7 trillion added by the budgets of... Donald Trump.
Put another way, whoever put together Trump's economic proposals very clearly worked to give him a talking point about the middle class, but otherwise pursued some very... controversial ideas, let's say. And it actually gets worse. If Trump were to pursue some of his other promises, it would change the math on his tax proposals. To take one example, the Times' analysis finds that if Trump imposed the tariffs he says he would impose, then the average middle-class family would be down $1,700 instead of up $2,200. To take another example, Trump's promise to bring back "dirt-cheap gas" would merely require... a global recession.
On that note, gas prices are dropping rapidly right now, due to high oil production, such that gas might well be under $3/gallon by November. If so, that would certainly take some of the oomph out of the "dirt-cheap gas" promise. Also, if you believe that low gas prices work to the benefit of the party that holds the White House, then the $3/gallon gas would obviously be good news for the blue team.
The bottom line here is that not all policy proposals are created equal. Trump may have an actual platform these days, but his economic proposals are full of misdirection and smoke and mirrors. They're simply not compatible with each other; it's reminiscent of when George H.W. Bush derided Ronald Reagan's program as "voodoo economics." If Trump starts crowing about how much more the middle class will get under his leadership, the debate moderators should immediately press him on the details, and how they don't add up. They probably won't do that, mind you, but they should. (Z)
Trump Legal News: Thunder and Lightning (in October)?
Yesterday was the latest hearing in Donald Trump's Washington D.C. case, and the first substantive hearing since the Supreme Court decided that U.S. presidents are basically all Louis XIV (L'État, c'est moi). During the hearing, Judge Tanya Chutkan set a fairly aggressive schedule for moving forward.
Naturally, and to the disappointment of many, there will be no trial this year. However, the nation's journalists and pundits will circle September 26 on their calendars. On that day, the prosecution must make a filing that details the evidence they plan to present in the case. The filing will not immediately be made public, but the odds are that a redacted version will eventually be released. September 26 is a Thursday, so an early October publication is a pretty good guess.
Assuming that does happen, then there will be several news cycles dedicated to poring over the evidence and to rehashing the question of whether or not Trump committed a crime. And that will be happening at a time when low-information voters are most likely to be paying attention. One might ask if such a release violates DoJ rules against interfering with an election less than 60 days out. And the answer is that DoJ rules only apply to executive branch employees, which Chutkan is not. She has made clear that a court case is a court case, and she will not play by different rules for Trump just because he's running for office right now.
As a reminder, Trump could well have other big, adverse legal news before there's anything more from Chutkan. In theory, he will be sentenced for his New York felony convictions on September 18 (a Wednesday). He's going to appeal, but there are some people who believe that anyone convicted of a crime should be jailed immediately, while their appeal is resolved. Among those people is Trump campaign Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who said so to The New York Times this week. She intended to criticize Kamala Harris' plans to eliminate cash bail, but—like so many Trumpers—forgot that her candidate is himself a convicted felon. Team Trump's problem is that the events of September are not going to allow the nation's voters to forget. (Z)
Biden Legal News: Hunter Ducks His Tax Trial
Our long national nightmare is over. Yesterday, the Department of Justice announced that Hunter Biden has pleaded guilty in his tax evasion case. So, there will be no trial. Biden will be sentenced about a month after the election, and while he faces a maximum sentence of 17 years, he's not going to get anywhere near that much time.
We debated whether we should even take note of this story, but we decided to write something brief because we are 100% certain that Donald Trump and his surrogates will try to weaponize this. We are also 99.9% certain it won't work. Hunter Biden is not running for office in 2024, or any other year. No members of his family are running for office in 2024, or any other year. The various attacks on Kamala Harris have not landed, and we just don't see how "But... but... but... she served with a president whose son is a tax cheat, so she is a very, very bad person" can possibly connect.
Meanwhile, we still believe that the father will pardon his son on his way out the backdoor of the White House. First, Joe Biden is a father first and a politician second. Second, it is a fair supposition that if Joe were not president, Hunter would not have been prosecuted. Third, if the concern is political damage, it's hard to see how that might work. Even if Harris wins, will people not only blame her for the fatherly actions of her predecessor, but continue to do so in 4 years? As a reminder, Donald Trump pardoned a whole penitentiary's worth of crooked associates, and paid no price for it at all. (Z)
Endorsement Watch 2024: Cheney Ready to Swim with the Sharks
We are a little surprised by the timing, thinking that if it did happen, it could come closer to the election. Nonetheless, former representative Liz Cheney, daughter of Dick, told an audience at Duke that she will be voting for Kamala Harris in November. Here is the key portion of her remarks:
Donald Trump, no matter what your policy views are—no matter if you are a conservative Republican or not—Donald Trump cannot be trusted with power. The power of the presidency is the most awesome power of any office anywhere in the world, and the character of the people we elect really matters. And, so what I say is, I understand the desire to think that you're casting a vote for conservative policies, but—first of all, he is not a conservative, and he's dangerous, and this is not a policy election, and we can talk about getting this country back on track once we get through this election cycle—but Donald Trump, if he is reelected, will be far more dangerous than we have ever seen before.
He has told us he believes you can terminate the Constitution. He's gone to war with the rule of law. He repeatedly suggests that the people who assaulted and attacked the Capitol should be celebrated. He has said he will ignore the rulings of the courts. He won't leave office. He is a risk that we simply can't take, and he has to be defeated.
I say that, not as a liberal Democrat. Not as someone who agrees with policies on the left most of the time, but he is simply a risk that, as a nation, we must never take again.
Because we are here in North Carolina, I think it is crucially important for people to recognize not only is what I've just said about the danger that Trump poses, something that should prevent people from voting for him, but I don't believe that we have the luxury of writing in candidates' names, particularly in swing states. And, as a conservative, as someone who believes in and cares about the Constitution, I have thought deeply about this, and because of the danger that Donald Trump poses, not only am I not voting for Donald Trump, but I will be voting for Kamala Harris.
And let me say that I think it is crucially important—and I would say especially to my fellow conservatives—that we think about the stakes and we think about the extent to which we have a duty, a duty, to put our country and our Constitution above partisanship. We all have that duty and responsibility.
And Cheney is not just bestowing her endorsement; she's apparently going to hit the campaign trail. She's going into the lion's den—Trumpy towns and counties where she's most likely to be able to speak their language.
Surely, someone—either with the Harris campaign, or the DNC, or the Lincoln Project—is going to put together a commercial with Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, a McCain or two, etc. If so, they will probably make an argument like the one Cheney made in her speech: Trump is too dangerous to be trusted with power. Truth be told, we think a different argument is probably more likely to be effective: Trump is like a drug, and the GOP won't break the habit until it hits rock bottom, which means a big-time defeat. In other words: "You're not voting for the party of Harris, you're voting to resurrect the party of Reagan."
Meanwhile, it's abundantly clear where the Cheney family stands. But how about the Bush family? Yes, George W. is enjoying a quiet retirement. But he's still the most prominent Republican in the country, outside of Donald Trump. Emerging from the shadows to make one last stand for democracy could be a nice final chapter to his career. On the other hand, if he sits and paints while Rome burns, that means a very different sort of final chapter. (Z)
Take It to the Bank: Harris-Walz are the Kings of Fundraising
Yesterday, we noted a couple of things about the presidential campaigns' fundraising: (1) The Trump campaign's August haul was $130 million, and (2) the Harris campaign has enough money that it's begun passing the bucks onto other Democratic entities.
Late yesterday, the Harris-Walz campaign announced its actual take, and boy howdy is it a giant pile of lucre. They brought in... $361 million. That's absolutely mind-blowing. It's nearly triple Trump's take. It's more than $10 million a day. And since Harris replaced Joe Biden, she's raised a total of $651 million, and has over $400 million in the bank. That's about $100 million more than Trump.
As we have written many, many times, it's neither easy nor cheap to translate money into votes. However, donations are a fairly decent proxy for enthusiasm, and clearly there's a lot of it for Harris-Walz. In fact, it's somewhat difficult to reconcile the neck-and-neck polls with the definitely-not-neck-and-neck fundraising. Plus, keep reading. (Z)
More on Registration: An Avalanche of Young Voters
We had an item earlier this week on voter registrations. And while it's hard to get good, clear numbers (for various reasons, as we pointed out), it's nonetheless beyond doubt that registration is up among key Democratic constituencies, particularly young, minority women.
Yesterday, there was another data point in the form of a report from voter-registration organization Vote.org. They have just surpassed 1 million registrations for the current election cycle. This is good news, in and of itself. Greater engagement is good for democracy. And while Vote.org is nonpartisan, their numbers pretty strongly hint at good news for the Harris-Walz campaign, in particular. A staggering 79% of the new registrations were from voters under the age of 35. Almost 40% of the new registrations came in the month or so since Joe Biden dropped out of the presidential race. Almost 20% of the new registrations came from swing states.
We should note that if the 2024 electorate looks substantially different from the 2020 electorate, that's another curve ball for pollsters, and one that they may not handle all that well. They can get at changes in turnout indirectly, primarily through "likely voter" screens, but it's tricky. So, it's another X-factor to consider when evaluating polling data. (Z)
Paging Sherlock Holmes: The Mystery of the Flyers
We had letters this past Sunday and the Sunday before that about mysterious pro-Republican mailings that some North Carolina readers, who are well-established as Democrats, have been getting in the past few weeks.
It turns out that our readers are not the only ones who have noticed this. Over at TalkingPointsMemo, Josh Marshall just had a piece about it. He doesn't have any answers either, but he was able to add the following clues to the investigation:
- It's not just North Carolina. It's all the swing states, though it appears to be particularly concentrated in the
Tar Heel State, along with Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia.
- The mailers officially come from the various state parties (e.g., North Carolina Republican Party, Republican Party
of Pennsylvania, etc.). However, it is unlikely they are the origin, if for no other reason than state parties don't
have the money to waste tilting at windmills. Per federal law, state parties get much lower bulk mail rates than any
other PAC or PAC-like entity. So, what's probably happening is that some mysterious entity is providing the fliers to
the state parties, and is writing a check to cover the (discounted) mailing costs.
- It does not appear to be accidental. There are too many flyers, and Democrats are getting them in all states. This is not just one wonky contacts list.
So, that clarifies the picture some... but only some. The two big questions that remain: (1) Who is behind this? and (2) Is there method to the madness, or is someone really operating under the understanding that mountains of junk mail can move the needle? We hope that, one day, the answers to these questions become known. (Z)
I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: T-Bone Blues
The first hint we gave for last week's headline theme was: "[I]f a headline word appears to be misspelled on 'headlines theme' day, it almost certainly is not." The second hint was: "'Weird Al' Yankovic did three Michael Jackson parodies, and all three of them, as chance would have it, hint at the theme." And now, the answer, courtesy of reader M.H. in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada:
Songs by artists and groups with names featuring food!
- Harris, Walz Interview: Democratic Ticket Goes the Distance with Dana Bash—"The Distance," Cake
- Post-Convention Polls: Strange Brew—"Strange Brew," Cream
- Trump IVF "Policy": Give It Away—"Give It Away," Red Hot Chili Peppers
- Republican Investigations: All Revved Up With No Place to Go—"All Revved Up with No Place to Go," Meat Loaf
- I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Brown Mayonaise—"Mayonaise," Smashing Pumpkins
- This Week in Schadenfreude: (Don't) Play that Funky Music, White Boy—"Play That Funky Music," Wild Cherry
- This Week in Freudenfreude: Better Man (Or, in This Case, Better Woman)—"Better Man," Pearl Jam (though I suppose that you could make the argument that you could roast and eat a swift...)
The headline of this item is a song by T-Bone Walker, another "food" musician. And the three Weird Al parodies of MJ are "Eat It," "Fat" and "Snack All Night." "Snack All Night" was never released commercially because Jackson refused permission, thinking that the origin song, "Black or White," should not be parodied.
Here are the first 50 readers to get it right:
|
|
For those who might have had a different reading of things, note that the food we intended in Pearl Jam's name is just "jam."
As to this week, the theme appears in every headline and relies on just one word. It's in the Trivial Pursuit category Sports & Leisure. For a hint, we'll say that this theme is probably a lay-up for many readers. Or a can of corn. Or... a wrist shot.
If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject line "September 6 Headlines." (Z)
This Week in Schadenfreude: Arlington Incident Continues to Drive Trump Wild
We don't love to use this space for politicians who are currently running for office. That does not mean we won't do it, just that we don't love it. We also don't want to beat a dead horse. That said, Donald Trump's inability to move past the Arlington mess is becoming absolutely comical.
Recall that after the news of an altercation broke, the Trump campaign insisted there was no altercation, and that it was all the invention of a mentally imbalanced Arlington employee. This caused the normally non-partisan, stay-above-the-fray U.S. Army to issue a statement, and to make clear that it was most certainly the fault of the Trump campaign.
When the United States Army has lined up against you, it's time to surrender. But that's just not Trump's style. And so, he doubled down on his fantasies, and declared that there was not only no altercation, but that the whole story was concocted by Kamala Harris. That's a good one, Donald. Why on earth would she need to make up stories when you keep shooting yourself in the foot?
The Army did not take kindly to Trump's continued lying, and so waded in yet again yesterday. This time, the statement from the Pentagon not only affirmed there was an altercation, but identified which members of the Trump campaign were responsible. It was deputy campaign manager Justin Caporale and advance team member Michel Picard. Of course, maybe Harris made them up, too.
And so, Trump has managed to keep this story alive for at least two more news cycles. And this may well not be the end of it. On Wednesday, Trump co-campaign managers Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles sent a memo to campaign staff telling them to stop leaking information to the press. Naturally, within 24 hours, the memo leaked. People who follow these things closely are interpreting the memo as a sign that a big, adverse-to-Trump story is about to drop from someone, and the subject may well be the Arlington fiasco. We'll presumably know sometime next week. (Z)
This Week in Freudenfreude: Four Thieves Vinegar Collective vs. Pharmaceutical Predators
The good thing about patents is that they incentivize innovation, by giving inventive people and corporations an exclusive window of opportunity to capitalize on their ideas. The bad thing is that the system is open to abuses. In the case of new medicines, the most obvious of those is price gouging. After all, if the choice is "pay" or "die," most people will choose the former, assuming they are able. Plus, much of the cost is passed on to insurers or to the federal government.
The anarchist group Four Thieves Vinegar Collective (FTVC) has been pursuing a rather interesting approach to the sky-high-price problem, one that makes it seem like they've watched more than a few episodes of Breaking Bad. In short, using their expert-level knowledge of chemistry, they have reverse-engineered various prescriptions, and developed do-it-yourself instructions that allow people to self-manufacture their own medications.
Most commonly, the group focuses on medications where, for one reason or another, the system has failed. For example, Hepatitis C can be managed with relatively affordable medications. Or, it can be cured with a 12-week course of Sovaldi. But Sovaldi pills cost $1,000, and a full course is 84 pills. And since the option to manage the disease exists, most insurers won't pay for Sovaldi. Obviously, there are plenty of people who don't have $84,000 lying around, leaving the cure therefore out of reach. That's where FTVC comes in—their alternative, which is the same molecule, costs 83 cents a pill, or less than $70 for the full course of treatment.
To take another example, Daraprim is an out-of-patent drug used to treat toxoplasmosis. Toxoplasmosis is not generally a big problem, excepting in people who are immunocompromised. For that reason, most pharmaceutical companies stopped making it—there was no real money to be made. Eventually, now-disgraced "pharma bro" Martin Shkreli noticed that his company was the only one making the drug, and increased the price from $13.50 a pill to $750 a pill. FTVC took up the cause, and developed a chemically identical alternative that costs $80 a bottle.
A third example involves a drug whose availability is not so much about cost, but about politics. That would be the abortifacient misoprostol. A course of that drug costs $160, which is not cheap, but is doable for most. That said, it's not doable for all, particularly if a person lives in a state that is trying to block access to the drug. So, FTVC came up with a clone that can be produced for less than a dollar.
We recognize, full well, that back-alley production of prescription drugs is a legal and moral gray area, and that it's a situation ripe for abuses. However, we take note of the work of FTVC for two reasons. The first is that they've got the science on their side. A molecule is a molecule is a molecule, and they know what is, and is not, the correct molecule. These are not people who are telling you to cure your cancer with honeyed tea and incense.
Second, it would be ideal if outside pressure on these various unjust situations could be brought 100% legally. But if it can't be brought legally, well, even illegal pressure can help change a broken system. To take one example, one of the reasons that Prohibition was repealed was all the illegal bootlegging that was going on. So, our hope would be that the availability of the pirated stuff would significantly reduce the barriers to acquiring the non-pirated stuff. That said, if a person cannot acquire their Sovaldi or Daraprim the legal way, then it is better they should have a bootleg version than to not have their meds at all.
And so, a (cautious) tip of the cap to FTVC. And have a good weekend, all! (Z)
Today's Presidential Polls
Take a good look at the map today. Harris is not winning in Arizona, North Carolina, or Georgia and still gets to 276. If she also loses Nevada, she has 270—assuming she wins both electoral votes in Maine and loses NE-02. That will be a real squeaker. Of course, if she wins NE-02, she can lose ME-02 and still be at 270. In other words, winning Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania plus one of the stray electoral votes is just (barely) enough. Naturally, winning the northern states and any one of the four southern states will make winning either NE-02 or ME-02 unnecessary.
YouGov seems to have a lean toward the Democrats. There is no reason to think this is intentional, though. Their model of the electorate just seems to be more blue than, say, Emerson College's. Hopefully by averaging the different pollsters, we can cancel out this sort of effect to some extent.
| State | Kamala Harris | Donald Trump | Start | End | Pollster |
| Arizona | 45% | 47% | Aug 23 | Sep 03 | YouGov |
| Georgia | 45% | 47% | Aug 23 | Sep 03 | YouGov |
| Michigan | 48% | 43% | Aug 23 | Sep 03 | YouGov |
| Montana | 41% | 56% | Aug 24 | Aug 28 | Fabrizio + Binder |
| Nevada | 49% | 46% | Aug 23 | Sep 03 | YouGov |
| North Carolina | 46% | 47% | Aug 23 | Sep 03 | YouGov |
| Pennsylvania | 46% | 45% | Aug 23 | Sep 03 | YouGov |
| Wisconsin | 47% | 44% | Aug 23 | Sep 03 | YouGov |
Click on a state name for a graph of its polling history.
Today's Senate Polls
Here's the storyline. All Democrats running as incumbents or for seats vacated by Democrats are likely to win—except maybe Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT). Tester's problem is that Montana is very red. In the presidential poll above, it is Harris -15 in the Big Sky State. Tester is -6. That means he is running 9 points better than Harris in a deep-red state, a nontrivial achievement. If we see this, the DSCC will, too. Expect the Democrats to get Bill Clinton and ideally Sen. Joe Manchin (I-WV) to campaign for Tester. If Tester loses to a guy from Minnesota whose aerial firefighting company lost $77 million last year, a President Harris will be largely hamstrung. One other thing the Democrats could do is go all out for Debbie Mucarel-Powell in Florida and Collin Allred in Texas to make up for a loss in Montana, but these two are longshots at best. (V)
| State | Democrat | D % | Republican | R % | Start | End | Pollster |
| Arizona | Ruben Gallego | 50% | Kari Lake | 42% | Aug 23 | Sep 03 | YouGov |
| Maryland | Angela Alsobrooks | 46% | Larry Hogan | 41% | Aug 24 | Aug 30 | Gonzales Research |
| Michigan | Elissa Slotkin | 50% | Mike Rogers | 39% | Aug 23 | Sep 03 | YouGov |
| Montana | Jon Tester* | 45% | Tim Sheehy | 51% | Aug 25 | Aug 29 | Fabrizio + Binder |
| Nevada | Jacky Rosen* | 51% | Sam Brown | 39% | Aug 23 | Sep 03 | YouGov |
| Pennsylvania | Bob Casey* | 52% | David McCormick | 41% | Aug 23 | Sep 03 | YouGov |
| Wisconsin | Tammy Baldwin* | 49% | Eric Hovde | 41% | Aug 23 | Sep 03 | YouGov |
* Denotes incumbent
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers